Tuesday, July 17, 2012

What could possibly go wrong with Obamacare?

HT: Carpe Diem:


25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Increasing the demand for medical services won't increase the number of doctors?

KyCobb said...

Its been hilarious watching Republicans get so upset about the Democrats for enacting the GOP proposal for near universal healthcare. Poor Romney ties himself up in knots trying to explain why the health insurance program he enacted as governor is a bad idea for the country. His claim that its unconstitutional has now been falsified by the court, and his other claim that what works in Massachusetts may not be right for other states is bogus because there is a provision granting states waivers if they want to insure their citizens by alternative means.

Anonymous said...

Romneycare was 70 pages long in its entirety.

KyCobb said...

Anonymous,

I can hardly wait for Romney to argue that the big difference between Romneycare (good) and Obamacare (evil) is that his bill was short.

Anonymous said...

You're right, KyCobb, the extra 2,630 pages of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats is all improvements, and we will all love it because the federal government always improves everything it touches.

Singring said...

'You're right, KyCobb, the extra 2,630 pages of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats is all improvements, and we will all love it because the federal government always improves everything it touches.'

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare withh shave at least half a billion off the deficit in the coming years. Would you say that's not an improvement?

Anonymous said...

No, Singring, I'd say you're smoking German hemp. President Obama told us that with his 800 billion dollar stimulus i.e. cars built in Norway to be sold in America with stickers starting at over 100,000 dollars (hello Mr. DeCaprio) that our un-employment rate would now be a little over 6 per cent. And you expect me to believe a ten year projection on something as complicated as the American health care delivery system? Heck, even the Soviet Union only had 5 year plans, but we're getting there.

Anonymous said...

Cars built in Finland, actually. Still a long way from Ohio.

Singring said...

'And you expect me to believe a ten year projection on something as complicated as the American health care delivery system? Heck, even the Soviet Union only had 5 year plans, but we're getting there.'

No, of course I don't expect you to believe in empirical evidence that contradicts your paranoid fantasies. Its a little odd though that you blindly accept current and past unemployment statistics to attack Obama but then refuse to consider similar data on the outcome of Obamacare when it is convenient to do so.

You are the typical conservative: unabashedly favouring pure gut feelings over the hard evidence.

Your behaviour thus nicely supports the main thesis of the book 'Idiot America' that I recently finished. An illuminating read for sure and spot on in its analysis, it appears.

KyCobb said...

Its remarkable to observe how libertarians' virulent, paranoid hatred of government has so thoroughly infected the GOP. To any objective observer of US history, its obvious that federal government programs have played a major role in improving the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans since the Great Depression. And yet the dominant faction of the GOP now insists that the federal government has virtually no legitimate role to play in domestic policy. I think this has to be because the only way to push tax rates on the 1% even closer to zero than they already are is to delegitimize government spending. However, the GOP has gone about as far as it can go, since virtually everything remaining in the federal budget has powerful constituents who will react angrily if it is cut. All the easy targets have already been eliminated.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, Singring, Idiot America. The world would be so much better off if your glorious homeland would have been victorious in World War 2. BTW Anony gave you a very recent example of not believing political promises, and we are still being lied to about the current "official" unemployment figures of 8.2 per cent.

Singring said...

'The world would be so much better off if your glorious homeland would have been victorious in World War 2.'

Classy, as always. Of course, this is completely beside the argument, which just goes to show how much you care about the actual issues. You apparently prefer throwing around paranoid references to communism and fascism to engaging with the actual evidence and issues at hand.

'Anony gave you a very recent example of not believing political promises, and we are still being lied to about the current "official" unemployment figures of 8.2 per cent.'

We are not talking about political promises, we are talking about the independent fiscal assessment of Obamacare by the non-partisan CBO. It has nothing to do with Obama or Romney or anyone else. If you only see lies and deceit and conspiracies everywhere and the only thing you trust is your gut feeling, then I honestly see no point in arguing the evidence with you.

Thomas said...

Anonymous,

If you can't distinguish between a CBO projection and a prediction from a political candidate, no one will take you seriously. Even on the internet.

KyCobb said...

Anonymous,

"The world would be so much better off if your glorious homeland would have been victorious in World War 2."

Well, I would have to suspect that you think so, since defeating Germany in WW2 required the expenditure of billions of dollars by the evil federal government, so that had to be a bad thing.

Lee said...

> Its remarkable to observe how libertarians' virulent, paranoid hatred of government has so thoroughly infected the GOP.

Here are some quotes to buttress your claim from certain other right0wing haters...

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." -- John Adams

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -- Patrick Henry

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." -- James Madison

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -- Thomas Paine

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." -- Theodore Roosevelt

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." -- James Madison

" In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson

Anonymous said...

What's German for a dumbass who can't take a punch? Singring has conferred empirical sanctity on the CBO which can only make projections on numbers and parameters given them by politicians. That's why they always cover themselves by reminding us about garbage in garbage out. That's why so many ex/retired CBO staffers are all over CSPAN saying that America's real obligations are not 16 trillion but perhaps 50-60 trillion dollars.

Singring said...

'Singring has conferred empirical sanctity on the CBO which can only make projections on numbers and parameters given them by politicians.'

You really ought to read up on the structure of your government.

From the CBO website:

'where do you get your information?

CBO relies on the rich data sources from the government’s statistical agencies. Those sources include the national income and product accounts, the census of manufacturers, the Statistics of Income database, the Current Population Survey, and various national health surveys. CBO also uses information provided by relevant government agencies and industry groups to meet specific needs. In addition, the agency seeks outside experts’ advice on specific analytic matters, such as the outlook for agricultural production, spending projections for Medicare and Medicaid, and business prospects in the telecommunications industry.

do you disclose your methodology?

Yes. We are required as a matter of law to disclose the basis for each of our cost estimates. We follow that same practice for our analytic studies.'

Of course, if you think that every government employee is a secret communist/fascist/freemason/illuminatus who is scheming with a cabal of godless soviets to take over the world, then all of this will not convince you.

If you see commies hiding behind every tree, arguing sanely becomes somewhat of a challenge.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

If the founders hate this government so much, why did they create it? Under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. already had an incredibly weak national government; if that was what the founders actually wanted, they could have left well enough alone. Instead, they drafted a Constitution which gave considerable power to the federal government, but protected against tyranny by separating its powers into five separate institutions (President, House, Senate, Supreme Court and Electoral College).

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

There are many things I have wanted to call Singring over the year(s?), but I have endeavored to restrain myself. That being said, you've technically violated the stated rules at the beginning of your last post. I like a lot of what you are saying and value your involvement here, but try to keep on the point and not get personal.

Singring, if you want me to take that post down, I will. I'll leave it up to you.

Anonymous said...

Technically, Martin, I just asked what is German for dumbass who can't take a punch. I figured a German could help me out there. Surely you don't think that Singring is is the only German dumba ummm dumbkoff out there? It's a big country. As for the CBO web site...white boy, please.

Lee said...

The question is, why characterize having the same views as the Founding Fathers as hatred when libertarians have them? Hatred was your charaterization; I'm just not buying it.

Singring said...

'Singring, if you want me to take that post down, I will. I'll leave it up to you.'

Kind of you to offer, Martin, but you know I can dish it out sometimes (though I hope I've never used expletives), so I better be able to take it when it's my turn.

It's your blog, so if it comes to the point where you want to remove any posts (including mine), it is of course entirely in your discretion to do so.

'As for the CBO web site...white boy, please.'

If this is the summation of Anonymous' response to an argument, I really don't think I have anything beyond his epithets to fear.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Libertarians, especially the most extreme ones, believe all government action is illegitimate. The Founders clearly did not believe so, or they wouldn't have granted the fededral government the substantial powers that exist in the Constitution.

Lee said...

It sounds like you are confusing libertarianism with anarchism.

Lee said...

Wiki's first paragraph on libertarianism confirms my own take on what it's about...

> Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.

And they and I are also in agreement with what anarchism means:

> Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.

Now, before anyone can accuse me of holding Wikipedia up as the ultimate primary source, I freely join in with the accusation that it can be very untrustworthy particularly on controversial matters (though usually, it would seem, they would tend to slant away from my own viewpoints). But these are, I believe, commonly accepted definitions of the terms and I refer to Wikipedia simply out of convenience. It's at least a good starting point.

To argue in favor of less government is not the same things as arguing in favor of no government.